Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Economic Growth in Latin America

TL;DR

The paper critically examines Latin America's economic growth data, demonstrating that Unified Growth Theory is contradicted by empirical evidence and lacks scientific validity, thus requiring revision or replacement.

Contribution

It provides a rigorous data analysis showing that Unified Growth Theory does not align with actual economic growth patterns in Latin America and other regions.

Findings

Unified Growth Theory contradicts empirical data in Latin America and other regions.

Economic growth followed a hyperbolic pattern, not a transition from stagnation to growth.

There was no real takeoff or escape from the Malthusian trap according to the data.

Abstract

Historical economic growth in Latin America is analysed using the data of Maddison. Unified Growth Theory is found to be contradicted by these data in the same way as it is contradicted by the economic growth in Africa, Asia, former USSR, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and by the world economic growth. Paradoxically, Unified Growth Theory is repeatedly and consistently contradicted by the same data, which were used, but never properly analysed, during the formulation of this theory. Unified Growth Theory does not explain the mechanism of the economic growth because it explains features contradicted by data. This theory is based fundamentally on the unfortunate lack of understanding of the properties of hyperbolic distribution and on the unscientific analysis of data. There was no transition from stagnation to growth at the end of the alleged Malthusian regime because the economic growth was hyperbolic. There was no escape from Malthusian trap because there was no trap. There was no takeoff. On the contrary, at the time of the alleged takeoff economic growth started to be diverted to a slower trajectory. Unified Growth Theory is dissociated from the reality. This theory needs to be revised or replaced. In its present form, it is a collection of irrelevant stories based on impressions and on the unscientific use of data.